Background
Although Bismuth-Corlette (BC) type 4 perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is no longer considered a contraindication for curative surgery, few data are available from Western series to indicate the outcomes for these patients. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for patients with BC type 4 versus BC types 2 and 3 pCCA undergoing surgical resection using a multi-institutional international database.
Methods
Uni- and multivariable analyses of patients undergoing surgery at 20 Western centers for BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and BC type 4 pCCA.
Results
Among 1138 pCCA patients included in the study, 826 (73%) had BC type 2 or 3 disease and 312 (27%) had type 4 disease. The two groups demonstrated significant differences in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics (i.e., portal vein embolization, extended hepatectomy, and positive margin). The incidence of severe complications was 46% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 51% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.1). Moreover, the 90-day mortality was 13% for the BC types 2 and 3 patients and 12% for the BC type 4 patients (p = 0.57). Lymph-node metastasis (N1; hazard-ratio [HR], 1.62), positive margins (R1; HR, 1.36), perineural invasion (HR, 1.53), and poor grade of differentiation (HR, 1.25) were predictors of survival (all p ≤0.004), but BC type was not associated with prognosis. Among the N0 and R0 patients, the 5-year overall survival was 43% for the patients with BC types 2 and 3 pCCA and 41% for those with BC type 4 pCCA (p = 0.60).
Conclusions
In this analysis of a large Western multi-institutional cohort, resection was shown to be an acceptable curative treatment option for selected patients with BC type 4 pCCA although a more technically challenging surgical approach was required.
Background: Resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has been reported to lead to worse outcomes than resection for non-PSC pCCA. The aim of this study was to compare prognostic factors and outcomes after resection in patients with PSC-associated pCCA and non-PSC pCCA.Methods: The international retrospective cohort comprised patients resected for pCCA from 21 centres . Patients operated with hepatobiliary resection, with pCCA verified by histology and with data on PSC status, were included. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and postoperative complications.Results: Of 1128 pCCA patients, 34 (3.0%) had underlying PSC. Median overall survival after resection was 33 months for PSC patients and 29 months for non-PSC patients (p = .630). Complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3) were more frequent in PSC pCCA (71% versus 44%, p = .003). The rate of posthepatectomy liver failure (21% versus 17%, p = .530) and 90-day mortality (12% versus 13%, p = 1.000) was similar for PSC and non-PSC patients.
Conclusion:Median overall survival after resection for pCCA was similar in patients with underlying PSC and non-PSC patients. Complications were more frequent after resection for PSC-associated pCCA, with no difference in postoperative mortality.
SummarySurgical resection remains the only proven curative treatment for peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Despite recent advances in liver surgery techniques and perioperative care, resection for peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Considerable variation in the perioperative management of these patients exists. Optimal perioperative management has the potential to deliver improved outcomes. This article seeks to summarize the evidence underpinning best practice in the perioperative care of patients undergoing resection of peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The authors also seek to identify areas where research efforts and future clinical trials should be targeted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.